Fellow blogger Jeremy Styron was responding to some comments I had made on one of his posts and made the following statement:

The argument from original sin here to explain human ownership or rape seems flippant and heartless to me.

Just to point out, “here” is not referring to anything that I said. In fact, I have never even heard of an argument justifying or explaining slavery or rape based on original sin. Anyone ever hear of something like this before? Because I am at a loss.

4 Responses to huh?

I’ve never ever heard such an argument that made any sense to me. I believe that all who have read any scripture or apologetic support will agree that “Original Sin” is the continuance of Adam and Eve’s fall from grace that is laid on us. That we have lost all purity, sanctity and justification that would have been ours except for their sin. We have their “original sin” passed on to us…it forces us to use our free will to choose to accept a path—God or not—Christ or not—sin or repentance. Original Sin is not of our chosing but is a ‘curse’ laid upon us and we are capable of subduing it to some degree through the grace, mercy and peace of Jesus Christ.

The word “here” was not in reference to anything George said during the conversation but was in reference to the topic itself. The point was that such things (slavery, rape, murder) seem to exist because, doctrinally, this is not a perfect world and original sin got the ball rolling in the Garden (and we are, apparently, under a “continuance” of that), and to explain or justify (maybe a better word) slavery, and the like, on original sin seems “flippant and heartless” to me. Original sin explains the other sins of mankind too because without original sin, presumably, other humans wouldn’t seek to enslave or kill or rape others. Presumably, we would still be in fellowship with God without sin, there, in that perfect environment walking with God, pre-fruit-taste-testing. If original sin doesn’t explain rape, murder, slavery and many other human sins from a biblical standpoint, what does? Free will? Satan?

We aren’t really in disagreement on the consequences and implications of original sin I don’t think. Possibly just on semantics, and obviously, on whether original sin exists at all.